Late Era - Started

[Kojusoki]

Well, I understand that if you have choosen this kind of "communication channel" you expect that others will say something. In my opinion, which can be wrong of course, advancing and taking INDEPENDENT provinces is not a hostile action. No matter where those INDEPENDENT provinces are located. Unless of course, your pact was saying something about those INDEPENDENT provinces. Of course you may dislike his movments, but as far as I understand the situation, he makes everything according to the rules.

Also, as far as we used to play, Nations with NAPs CAN fight with each other, but ONly on the INDEPENDET's lands... Saying simply - atack those INDEPENDENT provinces also - there can be only one

Look - with Pangea, Arco has a very clear situation - we have war

ONE MORE THING TO THOSE WHO DONT READ EMAILS:

SERVER HAS BEEN RELOCATED, SO PLEASE, MAKE YOUR MOVES ONCE AGAIN FOR THIS TURN!!!!

[Jazzepi]

*Out of Character*

I'm fairly sure you aren't allowed to cancel pacts for any reason, WSzaboPeter. Besides of course the other person violating it in same way. The NAP we setup didn't stipulate anything about invading neutral territories close to your capital.

You may be unhappy with Tein'chi's expansion, but that's part of the problem with making pacts! I made one with the lizard race in my newbie PBEM game and he's basically over-running the world right now. Even 3vs1 we might still lose.

Jazzepi

[WSzaboPeter]

Kojusoki, that's wise. I will attack and take only those 2 offending territories and then if T'ien Ch'i wishes peace I will grant him peace.

[Kojusoki]

If they ARE INDEPENDENT - sure.
If something is not "not-allowed", it means that it is allowed.

[Methel]

Hmm, I think the diplomacy rules are a bit constraining, how about we use sheps rules of diplomacy instead, makes for a more interesting game imho.

Also I would considert taking a province bordering my capital a hostile move, about as hostile as when you attacked me koju

[WSzaboPeter]

Well I agreed a NON AGGRESSION pact. If I consider this as an aggression, then you violated the pact, since it was not specified what can be considered aggression.

[Jazzepi]

WSzaboPeter said:
Well I agreed a NON AGGRESSION pact. If I consider this as an aggression, then you violated the pact, since it was not specified what can be considered aggression.

Non aggression means that you don't invade each other territories. That's the only meaning to it. Otherwise I should be able to invade your fortress because it's right on my border. That's fairly aggressive, building up an army directly on an allies' border.

Jazzepi

[Methel]

Jazzepi said:


. Otherwise I should be able to invade your fortress because it's right on my border. That's fairly aggressive, building up an army directly on an allies' border.

Jazzepi

Think your kinda shooting your own cause in the foot here jazzepi


How about you strike a fair bargain, he gets the province bordering his capital and you get some compensation, either in territory or otherwise.

[Jazzepi]

WSzaboPeter said:
Kojusoki, that's wise. I will attack and take only those 2 offending territories and then if T'ien Ch'i wishes peace I will grant him peace.

Hey, hey. This isn't fair to me. I signed a non-aggression pact. I didn't invade *any* territories that weren't neutral. I would like to ask Kojusoki to step in and explain that WSzaboPeter isn't allowed to invade those two territories just because he thinks they're too close.

He built a fortress on my border, does that mean I can invade it because *I* think that's an aggressive move on his part?

If WSzaboPeter is allowed to flaunt the rules of the game, and attack my territories even though we have a year long NAP, you'll have to find a replacement for me because I think that's completely unfair.

Jazzepi